The present invention relates to lighting. More specifically, the present invention relates to high efficiency lighting sources.
The era of the Edison vacuum light bulb will be coming to an end soon. In many countries and in many states, common incandescent bulbs are becoming illegal, and more efficient lighting sources are being mandated. Some of the alternative light sources currently include fluorescent tubes, halogen, and light emitting diodes (LEDs). Despite the availability and improved efficiencies of these other options, many people have still been reluctant to switch to these alternative light sources.
The inventors of the present believe that there are several key reasons why consumers have been slow to adopt the newer technologies. One such reason is the use of toxic substances in the lighting sources. As an example, fluorescent lighting sources typically rely upon mercury in a vapor form to produce light. Because the mercury vapor is considered a hazardous material, spent lamps cannot simply be disposed of at the curbside but must be transported to designated hazardous waste disposal sites. Additionally, some fluorescent tube manufacturers go so far as to instruct the consumer to avoid using the bulb in more sensitive areas of the house such as bedrooms, kitchens, and the like.
The inventors of the present invention also believe that another reason for the slow adoption of alternative lighting sources is the low performance compared to the incandescent light bulb. As an example, fluorescent lighting sources often rely upon a separate starter or ballast mechanism to initiate the illumination. Because of this, fluorescent lights sometimes do not turn on “instantaneously” as consumers expect and demand. Further, fluorescent lights typically do not immediately provide light at full brightness, but typically ramp up to full brightness within an amount of time (e.g. 30 seconds). Further, most fluorescent lights are fragile, are not capable of dimming, have ballast transformers that can emit annoying audible noise, and can fail in a shortened period of time if cycled on and off frequently. Because of this, fluorescent lights do not have the performance consumers require.
Another type of alternative lighting source more recently introduced relies on the use of light emitting diodes (LEDs). LEDs have advantages over fluorescent lights including the robustness and reliability inherent in solid state devices, the absence of toxic chemicals that can be released during accidental breakage or disposal, instant-on capabilities, dimmability, and the absence of audible noise. The inventors of the present invention believe, however, that current LED lighting sources themselves have significant drawbacks that cause consumers to be reluctant to using them.
A key drawback with current LED lighting sources is that the light output (e.g. lumens) is relatively low. Although current LED lighting sources draw a significantly lower amount of power than their incandescent equivalents (e.g. 5-10 watts v. 50 watts), they are believed to be far too dim to be used as primary lighting sources. As an example, a typical 5 watt LED lamp in the MR-16 form factor may provide 200-300 lumens, whereas a typical 50 watt incandescent bulb in the same form factor may provide 700-1000 lumens. As a result, current LEDs are often used only for exterior accent lighting, closets, basements, sheds or other small spaces.
Another drawback with current LED lighting sources includes that the upfront cost of the LED is often shockingly high to consumers. For example, for floodlights, a current 30 watt equivalent LED bulb may retail for over $60, whereas a typical incandescent floodlight may retail for $12. Although the consumer may rationally “make up the difference” over the lifetime of the LED by the LED consuming less power, the inventors believe the significantly higher prices greatly suppress consumer demand. Because of this, current LED lighting sources do not have the price or performance that consumers expect and demand.
Additional drawbacks with current LED lighting sources includes they have many parts and are labor intensive to produce. As merely an example, one manufacturer of an MR-16 LED lighting source utilizes over 14 components (excluding electronic chips), and another manufacturer of an MR-16 LED lighting source utilizes over 60 components. The inventors of the present invention believe that these manufacturing and testing processes are more complicated and more time consuming, compared to manufacturing and testing of a LED device with fewer parts and a more modular manufacturing process.
Additional drawbacks with current LED lighting sources, are that the output performance is limited by heat-sink volume. More specifically, the inventors believe for replacement LED light sources, such as MR-16 light sources, current heat-sinks are incapable of dissipating very much heat generated by the LEDs under natural convection. In many applications, the LED lamps are placed into an enclosure such as a recessed ceiling that already have an ambient air temperatures to over 50 degrees C. At such temperatures the emissivity of surfaces play only a small roll of dissipating the heat. Further, because conventional electronic assembly techniques and LED reliability factors limit PCB board temperatures to about 85 degrees C., the power output of the LEDs is also greatly constrained. At higher temperatures, the inventors have discovered that radiation plays much more important role thus high emissivity for a heat-sink is desirable.
Traditionally, light output from LED lighting sources have been increased by simply increasing the number of LEDs, which has lead to increased device costs, and increased device size. Additionally, such lights have had limited beam angles and limited outputs.
Accordingly, what is desired is a highly efficient lighting source without the drawbacks described above.